Talk:1552: Rulebook

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 06:10, 22 July 2015 by 141.101.92.81 (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

Doesn't the law forbid harming another's domestic animal? --Tepples (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it does. So, basically, the rulebook of the country says they cannot do it. It could have been a great cartoon if he had picked an example that was actually legal. 198.41.239.32 05:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, technically (1475: Technically) the law isn't part of any rule book... Unless there is a law (or rule) which says otherwise. (edit: That doesn't mean the law wouldn't apply nevertheless!)Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Does this law exist in every country? The dog is on property owned by the sports venue in an unspecified country.108.162.221.17 08:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Slaughter is not technically harming, otherwise we would not be able to eat beef, pork, .. -- and yes some people _do_ eat dogs (and cats) Spongebog (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
If an animal enters your premise and is not a protected species, you may kill it. If the owners wanted it alive they shouldn't have let it illegally trespass, since it usually only illegal to kill domestic animal on their domicile.108.162.219.9 00:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
At least in my state (Utah) the law supports euthanasia of (non-human) animals so long as it is performed in a humane manner (which is a very different standard than applies to humans). Cruelty is punishable in the law, but one could make an argument that so long as the killing of the animal was done in a humane way, it may not be punishable by the cruelty statutes. The judgment of law enforcement officers, officers of a court with jurisdiction, juries, and perhaps the court of public opinion in some extra-legal context would all come into play if a question of whether euthanasia was cruel were to be raised. CasaDeRobison (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you can euthanize someone else's animal though, unless the court has ordered it. I'm pretty sure you'd be guilty of theft & destruction of private property.
Ya, killing and eating the dog would be a crime. You'd go to jail for theft (or something like unto it), have to pay to replace the dog and for killing him in the first place, and probably have to forfeit the game when you get arrested for disturbing the peace and using a weapon in the court. Never mind whatever harm you caused to the people trying to defend the dog. Of course, when you get out, if your muscles haven't atrophied and you aren't banned from the game, the enemy team will have lost their key player... 108.162.238.179 16:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind the location of this comic isn't clear. In some countries, it is legal to kill and eat dogs. (Or at least, it isn't explicitly illegal.) KieferSkunk (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

On a mostly unrelated note: In at least one movie, the sports-playing dog has only three legs.

"But, why is the dog missing a leg?" 'Well, a dog that good you don't eat all at once!' - old joke

108.162.221.19 22:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Amusingly, Air Bud is also wrong because the basketball rules say that a team consists of five men, and dogs are not men. --AndyZ

That can be argued, if Air Bud is a male dog. Besides, "baseball is a game of two teams of 9 players each", but then they go and use the Designated Hitter. So Air Bud is just the Designated Dog. PsyMar (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Designated Hitler! --173.245.53.151 11:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm reminded of what Paul said to the Galatians: "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such things there is no law." Life is meant to be lived in this positive way, where the more of these "fruits" we express, the better we make the world. tbc (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Here endeth the lesson. --Pudder (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is related to Pluto at all. In the Air Bud movie, the dog's jersey reads K on one side, and 9 on the other. I think the 9 is in reference to this, and not a veiled commentary on planet definitions. -- Strangequark (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I rewrote the Pluto section to incorporate this and to also note that this particular comic came out immediately after the New Horizons fly-by. Given Randall's penchant for this type of scientific reference, I'm more inclined to believe this is not a coincidence, but rather a subtle message that takes a couple of degrees of connection to form. He has been known to do that in the past. KieferSkunk (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Pluto?? Come on, let's remove that. I know some people are really traumatized about the whole Pluto thing, but there's no need to see ghosts everywhere... 141.101.104.5 15:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The intentional foul is also referencing basketball when the losing team will intentionally foul the winning team late in the game so that the clock may stop. The winning team can only get 0,1, or 2 points from this then the losing team can try to quickly get 2 or 3 points making it "worth it" 173.245.50.126 15:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I am an Israeli and 1552 is about to be very very useful in describing the actions of my government. 162.158.91.114 19:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Battlebots

I guess no one else watches BattleBots here.
A few weeks ago, in the second episode, the "Complete Control" team used a net against their opponent, citing the fact that the "no entanglement" rule which had previously existed had been removed from the rulebook. Randall states he watches the show in What-if #5, so I think it's likely that Randall watched this new episode, and that this comic at least partially references it, although I concede that it's odd that he waited several weeks before doing so.
Also, I think the connection between the 9 and Pluto is tenuous, but I concede that it's possible given the timing. -452 (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Battlebots might have served as an inspiration for the timing of this comic, but given that these kinds of loopholes are exploited in virtually everything, I doubt he was referring specifically to it. KieferSkunk (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Many sports, especially youth sports, have rules specifying a player's minimum age. It's very likely that a dog could be excluded on those grounds. 162.158.2.249 16:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)1

Most league sports require the player to wear footwear meeting certain requirements as well. This would surely impede Buds dunkability. 108.162.215.184 23:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)BLuDgeons

A dog is a "canine" which, depending on your dialect of English, can sound like "K 9". WL15 (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no reference to Babe in this comic. Reference means to write or speak about something/somebody, especially without giving much information. In this case zero information about Babe is given. Xhfz (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with you here - in the first draft that I started revising, the writer had made specific mention of the "pathos" of Babe, but a more recent revision has pretty much removed that. The loophole in this case really has solely to do with Air Bud. I'll remove the Babe reference. KieferSkunk (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Are we really just going to let that whole section on Pluto stay there because the number 9 appeared in the comic? 108.162.210.138 18:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree - the Pluto part just completely ruins the explanation for me. Same goes for the weird and out of thin air reference to the dog name Pluto - seriously please remove these. 141.101.92.81 06:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC) WS